PARTY DICTATORSHIP IN CANADA

Eric Butler reports from Canada
"Australians appalled by the Australian party political situation should consider the Canadian situation where every form of interference with the individuals natural rights is much farther advanced than in Australia. The Canadian Federal Elections are to be held next month, and Western Canadians' frustration with continual domination by Eastern Canada, irrespective of the label of the Federal Government, has helped to produce evidence of support for a new party - the Reform Party, headed by Mr. Preston Manning, son of former Alberta Premier, Mr. Ernest Manning.

Some aspects of the Reform Party's platform are laudable, including defence of traditional values. But under the Canadian Electoral Act, no party candidate can stand unless the leader of that party signs his nomination papers. As yet the leaders of Australian political parties do not have this power.

"When well known Vancouver journalist, Doug Collins, offered to stand for the Reform Party, he felt that here was a party which might tackle some of Canada's basic problems, including immigration. Opinion polls show that over 70% of Canadians are opposed to a multiracial policy, which has produced appalling results. Doug Collins is author of a best selling work warning about the growing threat to English speaking Canada.

"A large and enthusiastic Reform Party virtually demanded that Collins stand as their candidate. No other candidate was even considered. But 12 hours after accepting the Reform Party nomination, Collins was bowing out with Reform Party leader, Manning, refusing to sign his nomination papers. Manning said that Collins was seen by some to be a 'racist'. Collins had bluntly refused to sign a Reform Party document rejecting 'racism'.

He revealed at the nomination meeting that Manning had first tried to persuade him not to stand as a Reform Party candidate, but he suggested he sign a document which he described as 'most remarkable ever sent to any candidate seeking political office, and that included the Soviet Union'. "Collins is a British ex-serviceman who suffered as a prisoner of war. A man of great moral courage, Collins appeared as a witness at the Keegstra and Zundel trials; claiming that the basic issue was freedom of speech.

"A journalist of the school which produced Malcolm Muggeridge and Douglas Reed, Doug Collins has always been prepared to change his views when he became convinced that the evidence demanded a change. He has come to doubt the accuracy of the Jewish Holocaust and has said so in his newspaper column. "Like his father, Ernest Manning, the Premier who sabotaged Social Credit in Alberta, Preston Manning is pro-Zionist. It was obvious that he did not want a man like Doug Collins in his party, irrespective of what Reform Party members wanted. "Holding up the Manning letter at the nomination meeting, Collins said, 'I've never groveled, never. And I'm not going to start now. This letter is an insult to this constituency.

"Doug Collins belongs to that breed who are not welcomed in the modern party system; which demands rubber stamps, not robust, free thinking members prepared to represent their electors. "But there are signs of a change coming in Canada as the concept of the Electors' Veto starts to become a political issue...."

N.S.W. LEAGUE STATE DIRECTOR WRITES TO 'THE AUSTRALIAN'

David Thompson sent this letter to The Australian (published Nov. 7th) in response to the published letter of Mr. Alan Griffiths, M.P., attacking the League of Rights.
"Alan Griffiths, M.P. (W/E Aust., 28/10) again attempts to justify an 'enquiry' into the Australian League of Rights without producing any specific reason, except that the League exerts too much influence. "He writes vaguely about 'sowing dissention, division, and hatred' without producing any evidence whatsoever. "The division of opinion and the right to dissent to policy are basic to the free society, which we seek to defend. The League encourages more effective expression of that dissent, which is often specifically suppressed by party politics. Where does Mr. Griffiths stand? He can't have it both ways.
"As yet, in the whole debate about the League of Rights, no instance has been cited where the League promotes hatred. It does not. We believe in opposition to ideas and policies, not hatred of individuals.

"The all party parliamentary enquiry into the League demonstrates a growing anxiety within parties about their own performance. If the parties feel threatened by a small, non-party organisation with pathetically slim resources because we give expression to basic electoral frustrations, it is a poor reflection upon professional politicians. If the party professionals have not yet received the electoral message, allow me to interpret. Slick, identikit party hacks, who could readily belong to either party and who have their snouts firmly entrenched in the public gravy trough, but fail to deliver on fundamental issues, deserve electoral contempt. Neither Senator Boswell nor Mr. Griffiths should attempt to intimidate the League, or any other movement, for encouraging expression of such frustrations. If the cap fits, wear it.

"All sorts of political swear words have been used against the League, including 'racist', 'anti-semitic'; all without a shred of evidence but a determination never to actually discuss the issues. "If Alan Griffiths' objective in the enquiry is simply to expose the aims and objectives of the League, unravel its 'front organisation' and discover the source of its funds, then a simple phone call would save the taxpayers the expense of yet another bureaucratic 'enquiry'. I would be very happy to provide such information, as I often do for others.

"I draw tax payers' attention to the fact that in 1984, former Communist, K.D.Gott, was engaged by Aboriginal Affairs minister, Clyde Holding, to 'monitor' and report on the League: for a $50,000 fee. Mr. Gott produced no report, and certainly nothing new about the League. Hopefully, Mr. Griffiths can improve upon that performance. "For Editorial scrutiny, I enclose a copy of our policy, clearly published in our journals..."
Note: the last paragraph was omitted by The Australian.

POLITICAL IMPRESSIONS OF NEW ZEALAND: JOHN LANE

Mr. John Lane, W.A. League representative, has just returned to Melbourne, after a 3-week tour of New Zealand.
"My impressions of New Zealand are at once both sad and hopeful; sad at the abuse of such a beautiful people and their breathtakingly picturesque land, and hopeful that the Kiwis have reached the point at which they will tolerate no more.
On a bus heading South from Auckland I met a young farmer whose first words to me included the question "Have you noticed how sorry for ourselves we Kiwis are at the moment?" My reply was, unfortunately, "Yes", The current New Zealand Government is blatantly Fabian in its attitude and objectives, as witnessed by the tragic results evident all over the country. Gang warfare is becoming common, unemployment is so bad that the employed recently marched on Parliament demanding action (and getting no satisfaction), while the newspapers feature stories about teenagers committing suicide - and the experts wonder why. Frankly, the Kiwis seem to have had enough.

The reaction to the proposals for citizen initiated referendums (CIR) and citizens electoral councils (CEC's) were very revealing. These ideas represent the most constructive proposals yet suggested, and more importantly they have been tried and proven elsewhere. Already the mistakes have been made, the lessons learnt, and success tasted. The word 'inspiring' hardly does justice to the effect the news of the CEC victory in Barambah has had on the embattled Kiwis, who recognize the chance to regain the control they've lost. They also recognize the simple fact that there can be no democracy unless the will of the people is carried out, and in New Zealand, judging by this criteria, democracy is dead.

Douglas once said that petitions are a perversion of democracy, arguing that such a procedure assumes the electors must ask their representatives to do their will. This is a complete reversal of the correct relationship of elector and elected representative, which should be a master and servant relationship. The elector should demand his servant do his will, and have the sanction to enforce that demand. New Zealanders recently had a particularly offensive example of arrogant politicians ignoring their wishes, when over 800,000 Kiwis petitioned their government to protest against the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. This was a staggering percentage of the population (which is approx. 3,000,000) to have signed any petition, and the appropriate action for the government to take would have been to bold a referendum on the issue. But in typical Fabian fashion, while mouthing support for "democracy" and the government totally ignored obvious expression of the people's will, and passed the Bill anyway. The sole purpose of both CIR and CEC's is to give back to the electors their sanction upon their representatives, and that, say the Kiwis, is a bonzer idea!"

CITIZENS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REFERENDUMS